Coincidence or Conspiracy?

[Tim Gratz]

Bill wrote:

And Tim, since you started all this, will you please respond to my question as to whether the fact Michael Paine was talking about political assassination with a co-worker at lunch at the very moment of the assassination - was ESP or possible foreknowledge of events?

Bill, would appreciate reference to the conversation.

In answer to your question, it seems somewhat hard to say. If Paine knew JFK was about to be assassinated, and he started talking about assassinations with a co-worker, he certainly wasn't the brightest bulb in the building, was he? Ddn't JFK talk about the possibility of an assassination that very morning? Did JFK have ESP or was it foreknowledge?

Which is NOT to say I doubt MP had foreknowledge. Remember his conversation with his wife right after the assassination.

[William Kelly]

Well, it can't be both - a coincidence and a conspiracy, it was either one or the other. How many coincidences make a conspiracy?

To answer that all you have to do is examine the list of coincidences between the murders of JFK and Lincoln. And of course, we have "researchers" who claim a connection between them because after all, how many coincidences make a conspiracy?

In retrospect, everyone seems to agree the assassination had something very much to do with Cuba and Castro, as even staunch lone-nut advocats (Russo/Mel A) acknowledge.

It's true that conspiracy theorists connect those dots, that's not "everyone" - that's just those who see that particular connection. There's also the contingent who sees a connection between the JFK murder and the Masons, the oil depletion tax allowance, the Vietnam War, the military industrial complex, the impending "firing" of LBJ from the ticket, etc. etc. etc. You are cherry-picking your favorite connection but it's not yourself and your fellow Cubanists you have to convince. Claiming a direct link between Ruby and Oswald is meaningless if it's not demonstrable to people who don't happen to instantly believe it. You need cold, incontrovertible facts, not third-party hearsay. No Grand Jury would ever vote to indict based on that. Decades of research by intelligent people have turned up fascinating insight into how things worked in the early 60's, but nary a direct link to the JFK murder.

So just focusing in on the Cuban aspects of Oswald, your accused assassin, and Ruby, his executioner, you eleminate all the other bull - and at places these two lines of inquery intersect, you zoom in and see what you've got.

That's what researchers have been doing for decades. What do we have as a result? A LOT of research on the CIA, on soldiers of fortune, on egocentric military types and a cadre of demented publicity seekers who want to inject themselves into a historical event. We've got grainy photos of Cuban revolutionaries with their arms around each other, endless tales of gun-running and jungle training. None of that - NONE of that - puts a shooter on the ground in Dealey Plaza. It's merely a fascinating subject of research with suggestive but ultimately empty payoffs.

I'll ride the consentric circles, you beat the dead horse.

No offense, and I mean that sincerely, but I think you're the one participating in a moribund equestrian event as regards a Ruby and LHO direct link.

Okay, Mark,

If I'm a conspiracy theorists, then you're a coincidence theorist - a coincidentalist.

BK

[Guest Mark Valenti]

If I'm a conspiracy theorists, then you're a coincidence theorist - a coincidentalist.

That's fine, my views obviously skew in that direction. I do believe a conspiracy involving LHO and others is viable - albeit low wattage when compared with the Grand Theories that are routinely floated.

[William Kelly]

If I'm a conspiracy theorists, then you're a coincidence theorist - a coincidentalist.

That's fine, my views obviously skew in that direction. I do believe a conspiracy involving LHO and others is viable - albeit low wattage when compared with the Grand Theories that are routinely floated.

Yea, Mark, I hear you.

I don't have a Grand Unified Theory, but do believe that whatever happened in Dallas it was a coup d'etat and that the evidence of this is slowing being revealed from the ground up.

Those who belive a single-lone nut assassin - Lee Harvey Oswald, committed the deed alone for his own psycho motives, well, they've already solved the case to their satisfaction so they can go home and let the psychologists figure out the assassin.

Those who recognize a covert intelligence operation when they see one and continue the research will have to figure out what are the coincidences and what is the coup activity.

I think we are pretty close to wrapping it up and knowing for certain who Oswald was and what he was doing at DP, and there will be less speculation going on once a few things are figuired out for certain.

BK

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Bill; Great article. Seems really important. I urge everyone to read this ASAP. Couldn't put it down./ Sorry, wrong thread.. I urge everyone to check out the article posted on the J. Walton Moore (CIA Agent in Dallas) thread.

Edited August 8, 2007 by Nathaniel Heidenheimer

[William Kelly]

Bill; Great article. Seems really important. I urge everyone to read this ASAP. Couldn't put it down./ Sorry, wrong thread.. I urge everyone to check out the article posted on the J. Walton Moore (CIA Agent in Dallas) thread.

Hey Nate,

Thanks for reading it. I think it might be important too.

Here's a link to it, and comments are welcome under the J. Walton Moore thread.

http

://reopenjfkcase.interodent.com/index....6&Itemid=9

Thanks to Greg for posting it and Robert Howard for calling my attention to the new docs.

Once we add a photo of Moore, footnotes and links to docs, I'm going to try to confront Bill O'Reilly about it.

BK